TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th penalty of ₹ 8000/- and also paid the tax with interest. It appears that there was some criminal case pending against the dealer and their consultant and therefore, he could not consult with the consultant / practitioner and therefore, dealer could not file the return - However, the facts remain that the dealer filed returns and also paid the penalty. The dealer also paid the tax with interest. Nothing adverse to the dealer was found except non filing of the returns for the period between April 2014 to March 2015. It cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error which calls for the interference of this Court - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of Assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 288 of 2017, CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2017 and 289 of 2017 with the following proposed question of law. Whether under the facts and circumstance, the learned Tribunal erred in deciding the registration certificate of the respondent were to be restored ? 3.0. As despite more than one year had passed, the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal passed in Second Appeal Nos. 707 and 708 of 2015, were not complied with by the State and the registrations under the VAT Act and CST Act of the dealer were not restored, the dealer has preferred Special Civil Application No. 7278 of 2017. 4.0. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under: 4.1. That the respondent in the appeals original appellant (hereinafter referred to as the dealer) wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (First Appellate Authority). That the First Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal on altogether other grounds. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the meantime, the dealer paid unpaid tax of ₹ 21.930/and interest of ₹ 2812/for the period from April 2014 to March 2015 and also paid penalty of ₹ 8000/towards non filing of the returns for the April 2014 to March 2015. Despite the above, on other extraneous grounds the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals and did not restore the registrations. 4.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal, the dealer preferred Second Appeal Nos. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that as such even the assessee closed the business from the premises which was registered and therefore, the dealer was required to be served with the notice and the order by affixing the notice / order. Therefore, it is requested to admit / allow the present Appeals. 6.0. Both these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Dhaval D Vyas, learned advocate for the dealer. 6.1. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Vyas, learned advocate for the dealer that admittedly the registrations were cancelled by the adjudicating authority solely on the ground that the dealer did not file the returns for three consecutive period. It is submitted that as such dealer already intimating the department about change of premises. However, the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, he could not consult with the consultant / practitioner and therefore, dealer could not file the return. However, the facts remain that the dealer filed returns and also paid the penalty. The dealer also paid the tax with interest. Nothing adverse to the dealer was found except non filing of the returns for the period between April 2014 to March 2015. There are no allegation against with respect to either evasion of duty and / or other allegations. Despite the above, the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals and did not restore the registration on other extraneous grounds which were not even considered by the adjudicating authority. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and making observations in para 14, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in extraneous circumstances and since certain criminal cases were filed against the appellant, he has refused to restore the registration to the appellant. Thus, the main default on which the registration was cancelled, was kept aside by the learned Deputy Commissioner, as the said default was already cured by the Department. He has however, pressed into service certain new issues, while deciding the First Appeals, which are beyond the scope of this registration and in any case it was no the subject matter of appeals. 7.1. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error which calls for the interference of this Court. No substantial question of law arise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
